Did NASA just ADMIT to extraterrestrial life?

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by voyger2

 

Im not quite sure I understand what your getting at. But, honestly, I dont think moving to mars is the solution to a dying sun. It would have to be moving out of our solar system to a younger star. If we move to mars, we're just delaying the problem. However, if we become able to move between solar systems, then we will have conquered the problem of dying stars, atleast temporarily until theres no stars left

Ok, then. But until we find way to travel at speed of light or "faster" mankind will need to grab anything to survive.

of course travelling at speed of light for mankind will be nearly impossible .... at this point we are at fantasy level... but who know's ...

note: i didn't said our sun is dyeing,(ok. we know that's a fact every day for all stars..i.e., one step closer to the end) i was trying to say that mister "mankind" here, could find way (like in nasa statement) to accelerate brightness/power of the star to heat up a little more mars and fry earth (like venus)... then man could survive in mars... this could be a complete nonsense but, in the field of imagination everything is possible...right ?

Originally posted by voyger2

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by voyger2

 

Im not quite sure I understand what your getting at. But, honestly, I dont think moving to mars is the solution to a dying sun. It would have to be moving out of our solar system to a younger star. If we move to mars, we're just delaying the problem. However, if we become able to move between solar systems, then we will have conquered the problem of dying stars, atleast temporarily until theres no stars left

Ok, then. But until we find way to travel at speed of light or "faster" mankind will need to grab anything to survive.

of course travelling at speed of light for mankind will be nearly impossible .... at this point we are at fantasy level... but who know's ...

note: i didn't said our sun is dyeing,(ok. we know that's a fact every day for all stars..i.e., one step closer to the end) i was trying to say that mister "mankind" here, could find way (like in nasa statement) to accelerate brightness/power of the star to heat up a little more mars and fry earth (like venus)... then man could survive in mars... this could be a complete nonsense but, in the field of imagination everything is possible...right

?

edit on 19-12-2011 by voyger2 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2011 by voyger2 because: (no reason given)

That's going to happen anyway. As our sun dies, and it will, it will expand and Mars will find itself in the habitable zone even if it's just briefly.

Originally posted by game over man
The real question is did life on Mars last long enough for a technically advanced civilization to exist?

Nasa 2003 article, Life on Mars

In the past, Mars was much different than it is today. Liquid water used to flow on the surface, as shown in this picture. Both the Earth and Mars should have been frozen in their early history because the sun was weak at first, but both planets show that water was flowing, which suggests that they both must have had thick atmospheres in place to keep the surface warm. In this environment life may have once existed.

The atmospheres on both planets came out of volcanoes. There were not many volcanoes on Mars, and those volcanoes were never very active. Compare this to the Earth where volcanism continues today.

The volcanic eruptions produce a lot of water. The water eventually falls to the ground or into the oceans. Mars is small, and so cooled off very rapidly. Mars was sufficiently cold for water to be absorbed into the ground and freeze like tundra in the Canadian northwest. Today scientists estimate that a large amount of water is frozen into the surface of Mars. They estimate this happened by 2.8 billion years ago.

So it is not likely that Mars will become a haven for life in the future...unless it is life unlike that which we know?

2.8 Billion years ago on Earth, the first signs of life were just evolving, so I'm guessing Mars would be at a similar process for life at the same time.

Or not?

If it had life, then it probably evolved faster as the planet cooled down much faster than earth, so who knows how far evolution got there.

I've always said disclosure would occur with a /yawn and not a /gasp! but thats old news really.

The quoted statement in the op is right on the mark "from what we know". We know Mars was warmer and wetter in its past, its not speculation. Add this to other evidence (meterorites. methane etc.) and odds are pretty good our little red neighbor had or has little critters. The trick part is if life from Earth and Mars were cross pollinating can we apply for dual citizenship? I like the sound of "Helmkat of Mars".

Hello

This is quite interesting because Richard Hoagland who had for years talked about there being life previously on mars had been ridiculed by the scientific community regarding the "face on mars"

Very interesting that NASA would now come out with a statement like this.

Wonder whether NASA will also soon admit to the reality of stargates.

Kev
www.theantichristidentity.com...
(shining the torch on the murky world of the new world order)

He does prefix his statement with "From what we know". That's very different than "We've now confirmed".

I think it makes perfect sense that based on the evidence, our scientists expect to find proof of life on Mars, even if that's not yet scientifically happened.

reply to post by mjp54


went into the school today to scan in the article in question.
I had to really cut down the picture though due to the image size limit by ATS. anyways, here is a scan off the blurb.

reply to post by TheIrvy


yes, if they are implying that where there is liquid water, there is life, then they could easily assume mars had or has life on it.

As I said previously, I would be very surprised if there wasnt life(bacterial) currently on mars underneath its surface.

Also, Lichens, mosses which eat rocks, have been shown to survive being in outer space. And im sure the surface of mars is much more habitable than outer space. Who knows, maybe even some bacterial or fungal contamination could have escaped from one of our rovers and is currently enjoying the spoils of a extremely huge ecological niche on mars!

reply to post by VonDoomen

post by VonDoomen
Who knows, maybe even some bacterial or fungal contamination could have escaped from one of our rovers and is currently enjoying the spoils of a extremely huge ecological niche on mars!

I fear that is what they will use to temper the announcement of the discovery of life on Mars when it comes , and I believe it will come sooner rather than later .
That's the Disclosure I want

reply to post by gortex


well, some simple genetic testing should be able to prove that. Even considering cross contamination between the planets, any species would have undergone their own evolutionary path for a considerable amount of time.
I believe the term is genetic markers?

en.wikipedia.org...

So in order to do that, they would need to pay off some scientists, and we know thats not even close to being plausible

Dr. McKay does not give the impression that he is merely speculating about past life on Mars. He says: 'From what we *know*, Mars *did* have life.' Not-- what we *believe*, but what we *know*, and not -- *may* have had life, but *did* have life. Baring a serious misquote, Dr. McKay seems convinced that there was once some kind of life on Mars. I sent inquiries to Discover magazine and Dr. McKay, raising the issue of the correctness of the quote. Heard back from Dr. McKay's office. An automated response reports that he is traveling and is out of email contact for the remainder of the year. This confirms an earlier report of the same result from a similar inquiry. Ross

All you guys have to do is make one little vid clip from NASA go viral and send it to your teachers or professors and all media outlets . Maybe that will bring you closer to your disclosure of other ET's and their shiny space ships . Forget Mars , something a little closer to home may get your ball rolling .

Would any of you be capable of under taking such a task ?

Originally posted by Violence
Well if that's what they wrote, that's what they wrote.

I bet he will respond about something to do with microbial life.

edit on 18-12-2011 by Violence because: (no reason given)

Even if he does respond with "oh i meant microbial" thats still 2 planets out of 9 in our solar systems that had/have life not forgeting the potential for life on one of Saturn's moons, that would make 3

And then we look at the rest of the trillions of stars with planets and the question is there life elsewhere, looks like only a retard would say no,

NASA stop being retarded... please we already no there is because there flying round in the skys

reply to post by VonDoomen


It's more than a little plausible that they did admit such.

I don't think it was accidental.

The PTB MUST be preparing the world for more brazen activity overtly in concert with the global government folks.

Either the critters and their craft will be used to scare us into the global government more fully . . . or be cast as saviors saving us from ourselves. Maybe some of both.

They know they have to break all this in as gradually as they can get away with. We shall see how gradual it ends up being.

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR


I totally agree.. just proving life, even if microbial on another planet in our solar system.. the possibilities are endless for the rest of the galaxy let alone the universe.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by celebration

 

NASA has thought there was life on Mars for years. Here's an article from 2005 on the NASA site stating evidence of primitive life on Mars they found in a meteorite.

Don't you just love how everyone seems to ignore this and instead continue on with their own "theories" and speculations regardless of what NASA has already said?

lol

The evidence later confirmed according to NASA that there was no past or present life on mars.That was the final word on the subject as far as NASA was concerned.

people are really misunderstanding a common slang phrase "for what we know"

to make it better understandable the editor of the magazine should have used the correct term for all we know, but both phrases are interchangeable in the vernacular.


such as "for what we know Elvis could have built the pyramids"
interchangeable with "for all we know Elvis could have built the pyramids"

it's a hypothetical phrase.

for all one knows
for all one knows [adv. phr.]
According to the information one has; hypothetical, a probability.
For all we know, Ron and Beth might have eloped and been married in a French chateau.
Categories: adverb


for what one knows
for what one knows [adv. phr.]
According to the information one has; hypothetical, a probability.
For what we know, Ron and Beth might have eloped and been married in a French chateau.
Categories: adverb

It's called an idiom, or a "turn a phrase" it doesn't mean they know life was there, it's saying "for all we know life was there"

for all we know a giant grape ape farted the earth into existence... also works.

both "for all we know" and "for what we know" are interchangeable as idioms


nasa did not admit to anything, and the OP is reaching since clearly do not understand idioms.

reply to post by Rafe_


Thank you!

I mentioned that earlier as well, but a few certain people chose to ignore the fact!
NASA officially said no, even though, personally, I believe they have a very high chance of actually being microfossils.

reply to post by Cito


lol thats very funny. I am reaching huh?

you'll notice I didnt come out and say they said this.

I asked if that is what they meant.

And I would love to see how you KNOW this man was using an idiom, and not just being straight forward.
Or are you a mind reader? Did you ask him? Because I know for a fact he is unreachable the rest of this year.

So yea, your allowed your opinion, but as for now, its an opinion, so looks like your the one reaching for conclusions! Go back and re-read the quote

"From what we know, Mars didhave life and oceans and a thick atmosphere"

not MAY HAVE HAD, but DID. That doesnt seem very hypothetical. notice how he also stated oceans and an atmosphere as well. So are we to assume the life part was hypothetical, but the ocean and atmosphere part were not, even though he set all 3 of them up in the same sentence? Clearly you dont understand the english language very well.

Mars is aka the "dead planet".
I'm almost sure what he meant is that once, the planet, was alive. Not that there was life on it.
He might very well be talking about eruptions, a live core, tectonic plates, etc etc.